What is it that makes us question everything?

In a word, evolution. Primitive humans probably accepted everything that happened to them as an act of the gods. As we evolved as a species, we learned that the way to harness the environment to work for us is to question, question, question.

I don't think that it is useless to attempt to unravel the mysteries of the universe. If we didn't, we would still be in a primitive state. I think that it is imperative. That is not to say that not all individuals are equally able or interested in learning about the world. It varies greatly from individual to individual. But as a species, humans need to keep learning, lest we devolve into more backward level.

There are a number of societies on earth that appear to be of earlier times. Reactions are more primitive. Ways of dealing with problems tend to rely more on physical strength, magical thinking, and reliance on forces outside of themselves, rather than intellectual acuity. Even in so called advanced societies, there are people who appear to relate on a less evolved level of functioning.

It is only as society as a whole advances, that we may throw off more completely the remnants of our primitive pasts.The only way to advance to to keep questioning, and finding answers.

Phoenix

I cannot see what evolution has to do with the question. "Primitive humans", as you say, questioned the world like we do. They were curious like us. They made questions like we do. The cultural perspectives were different but that difference has nothing to do with being "primitive".

A magical explanation or a religious one are acceptable explanations within a specific system of cultural references. To me or to you they are not acceptable because we belong to a completely different culture.
The validity of an answer has to do with the system of cultural references implicit in the question.

You fail to see Phoenix's point Val, I'm sure she'll explain.

The drive is . . .
The drive for SURVIVAL makes us want to unravel everything, even the unknowable. This "instinct" is why we are so curious. We really don't ascribe to "what we don't know won't hurt us." There's probably an element of fear in that . . . which goes back to the drive for survival.[/color]

Eryemil

My interpretation of Phoenix message was that she claimed that there is an evolution from the "primitives" forms of religious or magical explanations to our "enlightened" way of questioning the universe and answering. That was Comte view in the XIX century.

What do we really know?
I think that, although we may end up learning about everything that we need to know, and that we wanted to know, we will never truly know every single thing. We cannot complete this in the short time that we're given on this earth. We will have to do some studying afterwards...

I don't think that, in our heart of hearts, we want to know every single thing on the planet. I don't really want to know why genocide happens every day. I think I would spend the rest of my life throwing up if I learned the depth of evil that exists in the world. I think I would also spend the rest of my life throwing up if I found out what the motivations were for those songwriters to write that "Sunshine, Lollipops..." song, too.

I think that if there were no more mysteries to solve, and nothing more to learn, we as an intellectual species would become bored to tears, and would no longer have any further need to communicate. Even those people who sit around and watch bad soaps all day from their trailers (no offense, anyone) still want to know what's going to happen to their favourite characters tomorrow, or the next day. It might not be the highest intellectual pursuit, but it's a quest for "knowledge" nonetheless.

Of course, I'm saying this in a state of mourning. But I'll use that as an example. Did Cavfancier learn everything before he shuffled off this mortal coil? Of course not. Has he learned everything since shuffling off? I highly doubt it, or he's going to have a pretty boring afterlife, since one of his key motivations was his desire to learn new things. And have I, as his wife, or his family, or his friends, learned everything there is to know about Cav? No, of course not. We may never learn everything. But the pursuit of knowledge is the thing. Whether we use it for good, to try to understand our fellow human beings, or whether we don't use it at all or use it for "evil", like splashing celebrity gossip across magazine stands around the world, human beings have a desire to learn. That desire has made us who we are.

I think we just like the feeling of satisfaction.

I agree with Phoenix that curiosity has benefitted the human species (as an effect, whether as cause or effect or both, of our increased brain size) because of its expression in the INVENTION of weapons, tools, and techniques for building shelter, growing and processing food, etc...
But I also agree that most of our mental commitments--especially our ideological beliefs--reflect our social cultural conditioning. My sense is that most individuals of our species question very little and accept very much. Societies in general are best characterized as based on sancrosanct mythologies. It is the exceptional individual that dares risk social rejection for unconventional thought.

--edited

Phoenix: I liked the idea of questing after knowledge as a sort of "new" evolution. It helps explain our accelerating leaps of innovation in the sciences and maths, and accentuates the trend towards "brain over brawn". well done.

That also connects with Charli's answer; that it's a sort of next step from the survival instinct, or an evolution of an evolution.

Buttercup: Did you mean that while we might discover the causes for everything we can perceiver, that our ability to perceive might be limited? (I'd agree, by the way.) I also like your point that maybe we need mysteries to keep us going, to drive us on.

Also, my condolences for your loss. Though I didn't know Cav well, it was obvious he was an integral part of the forums, and I know he'll be missed.

In that case Val, I agree with Phoenix's post. Nice way of putting it all together Taliesin; and love your signature.

taliesin

The quest for knowledge begun with the homo sapiens. But an evolution?Do you mean that a scientific or technological culture is superior to the others? Do you mean that you are superior to an hindu, to Australian aborigines, to mexican indians?
Why? Are they less adjusted to their environment? Do they have no curiosity, no questions?

And in past? Do you feel superior to a student of Plato's Academy? Or to the man or men that wrote the "genesis"?
But why? Those people were curious, made questions, gave their answers. What is your criteria to talk about an evolution?

I think the problem is in the fact that we judge other peoples cultures, other cultural periods, by our cultural standards. Of course, from a scientific point of view we are superior, we have much more scientific knowledges. But the scientific point of view is good to us, not an universal reference.
Sorry to say this, but I think it is a very bad idea to use evolution - a fascinating concept that has nothing to do with cultural or social patterns - in order, once more, to establish a cultural imperialism. If fact, that is what Cortez did in Mexico, what slavers did to black people, what nazis did to "non-arians": the idea their were superior, in a superior degree of evolution, forgetting that their judgement was based in their own cultural references, upon people with completely different cultural references.

I am sorry but these examples are total bull and don't relate at all to each other in the context of this topic.

First of all you should knock the word "superior" as it indicates one people being better than other.
Our society is indeed better structured that all those examples you've given in the first paragraph. I am not talking about our technological advancement either, but our way of thinking.
Their culture is/was indeed primitive, but in no way have I said that we are superior because of it.

Now we can analyze your second paragraph, here is where your argument goes to hell.
The topic of this thread is human curiosity and our quest for knowledge.
Phoenix's reply said, in a nutshell was that the human innate curiosity was a product of evolution; as our mind developed, we began to question the world around us more and more.

Even though she did state the earlier people were primitive, she never implied we were superior as human beings.

Now you pulls this argument out of thin air about things that have been done to people because of racial differences, and I ask; what does this have to do with social evolution? Just because racial differences are a result of evolutionary process this does not have anything to do with the evolution of the mind. Even more relevant, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

You seem to be confused about the difference between racial superiority/inferiority and cultural advancement.

The quest for knowledge is like the quest for fire once burned never taken lightly.

Val: I'm not sure where you're inferring this from:


My point was that curiosity could be an extension of the survival instinct: obtaining knowledge about the universe in order to control it/protect ourselves from it. Nowhere did I even mention cultures, or degrade another's intelligence. For the record, I think that knowledge and intelligence are different things, and that while we might have more knowledge than people 2,000 years ago, they were just as intelligent.

I think you must have misinterpreted my meaning. Also, where did this:



come from? Please explain your post further, and where you got this from my post. Thanks.

I ask the same thing, your second paragraph is irrelevant to this topic, as I've said earlier.

Val may have misread the point of the thread, but his critique, although misdirected, was based on a cultural relativism that is endorsed by the discipline of anthropology. We may be more technologically advanced than, say, the "primitives" of New Guinea or East Africa, but talk to their mature individuals about questions of social values or existential realities, and we quickly discover that we have not surpassed them in any absolute sense. This was not the case with the 19th century evolutionists who ranked societies in absolultistic and global terms of levels of evolutionary attainment: i.e., savagery, barbarism, civilization.

Eryemil

But it is just that "cultural advancement" that leads to qualifications of "superior/inferior".
I deny that cultural advancement, since we are talking about civilizations with their own set of cultural references.
A kid 10 years old knows more about the universe than Homer did. Does that mean Homer is a primitive?
Yes, if you are judging him by values of a scientific culture. But that scientific culture was not Homer's culture.
The references you use to talk about "primitives" are the references of your cultural references.
Let me give you an example, that I took from a book of the biologist Henri Atlan . A magical explanation of the thunder - the wrath of the Gods - and a scientific one. Wich of them is more valid?
My answer is: none. In the cultural perspective of a german 2000 years ago the wrath of Thor was the only acceptable explanation.
From our scientific set of cultural values, that explanation has no value.

We cannot compare civilizations. Any civilization has it's own set of cultural references that cannot be judged by another civilization with another set of cultural references.
And that is what you do when you speak of evolution. We are better enlightened that the "primitive" man who believed in Thor. Don't you see that there is no evolution between that civilization and ours? They had no scientific curiosity. Science was not a reference in their cultural system.
In our cultural system, science - and saying science I mean all the conceptual references since Newton and Kant - is one the principal references.
When you use that cultural reference to judge other civilizations - and, I repeat, saying that those civilizations were primitive IS A JUDGEMENT - you are implying that science is the absolute criteria. You are making science, exactly what those people made with their values: A RELIGION.
And that I cannot accept.

Val: I disagree. Valueing science above all else isn't making science a religion. In fact, it's eliminating religion, sicne science is based on facts and experiments, whereas religion is based on faith and hope.
Also, I would refute your claim that the "primitive man who believed in Thor" was lacking in scientific curiosity. I would say that science just hadn't explained everything yet, and I would also apply that paradigm to today's world: religion will be around until we explain everything. (And maybe after, if it turns out that there is a God.) But, after that point, religion will change from its current state(irrational beliefs) to a new form (worship based on knowledge).

I liked how you presented your argument, though.

It is two billion years from now and the human race has through science developed a single unifying theory, completely self-consistant which explains everything we've ever seen in the universe. Through continued testing it remains to be completely reliable, anything can be predicted with it.

Will that theory be true? Maybe, maybe not. The problem is that the universe could just as easily be a flawless computer simulation and we would never know.

We can never know everything for certain. Yet we can get pretty damn sure.